2nd condemned Texas inmate in as many days executed

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It reinforces those common values - not in those people sufficiantly deviant to violate them, but in the general population.

If they're not going to violate them anyway then what has this to do with the price of tea in China?

A statement of principles has, I suppose, a unifying effect. (That's not well worded, but I'm not entirely sure how to describe it.)

You sound like Heinlein at his worst.

And, of course, one of those common values is that these people do not have rights

What's really funny is that this is not a unifying statement at all. Most (?) Americans probably believe it, but a significant minority do not. And that minority is probably concentrated among the most productive members of society (not that they form a majority even in this subset). And such a statement is going to be morally repugnant to those who believe it to be untrue. So your unifying statement is actually a divisive one.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I think I get it now.

In societies where people actually value human life (Massachussetts, the Netherlands, etc), and demonstrate that value by not killing other people, you don't need the death penalty to remind them of how serious murder is.

In societies where people are too barbaric to value human life (the Philippines, Texas, etc), the State has to slap them into remembering.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If you say murder is the greatest crime, and then punish it no worse than lesser crimes, you haven't really placed it any lower on the hierarchy. So no.

I am not in favour of life without parole for any crime which does not involve the wrongful death of a human being (in context of First World civil society)

So this is a red herring.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I am not in favour of life without parole for any crime which does not involve the wrongful death of a human being (in context of First World civil society)

So this is a red herring.

Good thing it wasn't directed at you, then.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I think I get it now.

In societies where people actually value human life (Massachussetts, the Netherlands, etc), and demonstrate that value by not killing other people, you don't need the death penalty to remind them of how serious murder is.

In societies where people are too barbaric to value human life (the Philippines, Texas, etc), the State has to slap them into remembering.

You're smarter than this.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Show me how I'm wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

You sound like Heinlein at his worst.

That's just cruel.

What's really funny is that this is not a unifying statement at all. Most (?) Americans probably believe it, but a significant minority do not. And that minority is probably concentrated among the most productive members of society (not that they form a majority even in this subset). And such a statement is going to be morally repugnant to those who believe it to be untrue. So your unifying statement is actually a divisive one.

This is why I didn't really like the way I phrased it. It has connotations of "oh, let's all gather 'round for the execution" as some sort of public event. Like a stoning, where everyone participates. That's not what I mean. It's a declaration that we consider this so bad that it demands this punishment. Now, if the majority opinion changed, so would the policy, though I'd still disagree with it.

And I don't agree with your strict consequentialist view. I think some things can be good in themselves.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Show me how I'm wrong.

You keep assuming that the dp is targetted at murdurers. It's not.

[KrazyHorse]

It has connotations of "oh, let's all gather 'round for the execution" as some sort of public event. Like a stoning, where everyone participates. That's not what I mean.

Funny, because I don't understand how else you can mean it.

It's a declaration that we consider this so bad that it demands this punishment.

It's an extremely divisive statement. On the same order as abortion. Except there's no choice but to make a divisive statement on abortion.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci, this is an extremely strange argument. I'm not sure you've thought it through...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You keep assuming that the dp is targetted at murdurers. It's not.

The dp is targetted at murderers. If you're saying that you're arguing for a purely theoretical application of the dp, then I take your point. I still disagree with it, however. An act as brutal as execution, for whatever reason, doesn't convey commonly-held positive values; it conveys the raw power of the State. There are societies in which public demonstrations of that power may be seen as an appropriate goal of the State, but democracies should not be among them.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You keep assuming that the dp is targetted at murdurers. It's not.

Yes, it's targetted at murderers who plead innocent and/or can't afford a hot shot lawyer.

[Kuciwalker]

KH: I'm still trying to work out a good way of explaining it. Will get back to you.

Originally posted by Sandman
Yes, it's targetted at murderers who plead innocent and/or can't afford a hot shot lawyer.

The same argument applies to almost any punishment for any crime, so it's inadmissible unless you want to go the Ludd route.

And that's entirely apart from the fact that the comment actually had nothing to do with the post it was ostensibly a response to.

[Sandman]

The difference is that you can't resurrect an executed person who was actually innocent.

[MRT144]

this is a thread built on muddled thinking.